<quoted text>So you are saying that Jerry Sandusky's situation seems to show that it was not marriage that made him an abuser. Whaterver caused him to abuse was already in place. I get that. I contend that it is not celibacy that causes the sexual abuse of children. That the propensity to abuse is already there before celibacy is supposedly taken on. One could easily change "celibacy" to marriage, "celibates" to some who are married, and "sexual suppression" to sexual expression and find those to whom the rest of the quote fits. The study of human behavior is just not that easily boxed and packaged.

Neither you nor I knows what caused Jerry Sandusky's problem. No on is suggesting that celibacy is the only cause for deviant sexual behavior. Maybe he was was abused as a child?

However the point is that a young Catholic seminarian would have been taught to abstain from sex (including masturbation) until marriage. He most likely would have, at least, experimented with masturbation (complete with Catholic guilt) but may very well never have experienced any normal, healthy, satisfying outlet for his innate sexual drive. Then you ask him to make a lifetime commitment to celibacy (which is not normal in and of itself) and you wonder why his sex drive eventually manifests and sometimes in a deviant manner.

I have never disputed the power of the ideal of celibacythe complete and unflinching sacrifice of one's sexual life for the undivided service of others. Nor have I ever advanced or advocated the argument that simply discarding the rule of mandatory celibacy will make priests more sexually responsible or mature. But celibacy is undeniably a problem for priests. A study of Swiss priests published on May 12, 2003, revealed that 50% of that clergy had mistresses. Father Victor Kotze, a South African sociologist conducted a survey of the priests in his country (1991) and found that 45% had been sexually active during the previous two year period. Pepe Rodriguez published his book length study of the sexual life of clergy in Spain (La Vida sexual del Clero 1995). He concluded that among practicing priests 95% masturbate Arguments abound that claim that any voice urging debate about celibacy has an "anti-Catholic" or "anti-celibacy" timbre. That is absolute nonsense.- A.W. Richard Sipe, former Benedictine monk-priest, sociologist

Again, the sex drive is innate and very powerful; you dont just turn it off without dealing with some consequences.

<quoted text>You may want to clarify this post, Ken.To me, it reads-"I believe homoseuality is normal. Mandatory celibacy as a condition to become a cleric is fundamentally flawed practice as it may result in an internal culture of homosexuality".Two questions arise right away-1.) if homosexuality is normal. who cares if it was the "internal culture"?2.) you have, many times, correlated the celibacy requirement as a causative to pedophilia. If celebacy results in a homosexual culture, is homosexual culture predisposed to pedophilia? You're making that link with this post.

Dan,

I can see your point.

So, it is important to say and to realize that Celibacy, per se, is not the culprit.

The requirement of celibacy - as a condition of eligibility - is where the deviation, which is a compromise of personal integrity, begins.

Homosexuality among the clergy is simply homosexuality. If an institution is developed that fosters an internal, hidden culture of compromised personal integrity, and which in itself is outwardly projected to be the icon of honesty and truth, bad things are going to result.

Understand. Homosexuality is not a bad thing. It is a normal part of the spectrum of human sexuality.

However, promiscuity and simultaneous cultural ostracization coupled with the forced compromise of personal integrity is a recipe for disaster for anybody, no matter where or in whatever institutional setting they may find themselves.

The same compromised settings may and in the case of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, obviously do provide a fertile garden for the growth of pedophile behavior - especially if, as in the RCC, it is allowed to persist through a system of hidden enabling.

Therefore, it can easily be seen how the same system can be causing conditions that result in more than one overlapping set of problems.

Homosexuality and pedophilism are not the same. But, there certainly are homosexual pedophiles. And, there certainly are promiscuous homosexuals hiding their behavior within an enabling system of supposedly virtuous men.

<quoted text>Dan,I can see your point.So, it is important to say and to realize that Celibacy, per se, is not the culprit.The requirement of celibacy - as a condition of eligibility - is where the deviation, which is a compromise of personal integrity, begins.Homosexuality among the clergy is simply homosexuality. If an institution is developed that fosters an internal, hidden culture of compromised personal integrity, and which in itself is outwardly projected to be the icon of honesty and truth, bad things are going to result.Understand. Homosexuality is not a bad thing. It is a normal part of the spectrum of human sexuality.However, promiscuity and simultaneous cultural ostracization coupled with the forced compromise of personal integrity is a recipe for disaster for anybody, no matter where or in whatever institutional setting they may find themselves.The same compromised settings may and in the case of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, obviously do provide a fertile garden for the growth of pedophile behavior - especially if, as in the RCC, it is allowed to persist through a system of hidden enabling.Therefore, it can easily be seen how the same system can be causing conditions that result in more than one overlapping set of problems.Homosexuality and pedophilism are not the same. But, there certainly are homosexual pedophiles. And, there certainly are promiscuous homosexuals hiding their behavior within an enabling system of supposedly virtuous men.Rev. Ken

I'll take issue with your predicate that maintaining a vow celibacy is a de facto compromise of personal integrity. I'll actually reject that assumption, in fact.

You wouldn't assign the same quality of "compromise of personal integrity" to a marriage vow, would you? That vow abridges certain natural sexual impulses just as the vow of celibacy.

Using your logic, I'd run out your same scenario (..."provide a fertile garden for the growth of pedophile behavior..") for married clerics, as the clerical state assuredly is institutional in nature for all to some degree.

<quoted text>I'll take issue with your predicate that maintaining a vow celibacy is a de facto compromise of personal integrity. I'll actually reject that assumption, in fact.You wouldn't assign the same quality of "compromise of personal integrity" to a marriage vow, would you? That vow abridges certain natural sexual impulses just as the vow of celibacy.Using your logic, I'd run out your same scenario (..."provide a fertile garden for the growth of pedophile behavior..") for married clerics, as the clerical state assuredly is institutional in nature for all to some degree.

Dan,

You are looking for ways to confuse the issue and negate my assertion.

You don't like the idea that the vow of celibacy is a direct cause for the hidden culture of homosexuality in the RCC priestly Orders.

But, it is just that.

The vow is a screening sieve that generally prevents the heterosexual from applying for the job.

<quoted text>Dan,You are looking for ways to confuse the issue and negate my assertion.You don't like the idea that the vow of celibacy is a direct cause for the hidden culture of homosexuality in the RCC priestly Orders.But, it is just that.The vow is a screening sieve that generally prevents the heterosexual from applying for the job.

I'm not confusing the issue.

I simply don't beleive you've shown direct causation between celibacy and pedophilia. You assert that a vow of celibacy is innately harmful and compromises one's integrity; such compromise, you assert, leads to sexual deviance.

Your insistent repetition of the assertion doesn't make it so.

Curiously, you have now twice correlated celibacy as cause of a "hidden culture of homosexuality" in the RCC clergy while seemingly affirming homosexuality as "normal" (your term).

Again, is there intrinsic harm in a culture of homosexuality? You treat it as such-you claim it as the fruit of mandated celibacy, which you object to most strenuously.

If the issue is "confused", perhaps it's due to your scattergun logic.

<quoted text>I'm not confusing the issue.I simply don't beleive you've shown direct causation between celibacy and pedophilia. You assert that a vow of celibacy is innately harmful and compromises one's integrity; such compromise, you assert, leads to sexual deviance.Your insistent repetition of the assertion doesn't make it so.Curiously, you have now twice correlated celibacy as cause of a "hidden culture of homosexuality" in the RCC clergy while seemingly affirming homosexuality as "normal" (your term).Again, is there intrinsic harm in a culture of homosexuality? You treat it as such-you claim it as the fruit of mandated celibacy, which you object to most strenuously.If the issue is "confused", perhaps it's due to your scattergun logic.

LOL!!!..... Sorry, Dan.

"...seemingly..."?

No. It is a matter of fact.

I didn't make ANY assertion that there is direct causation between celibacy and pedophilia.

"You assert that a vow of celibacy is innately harmful and compromises one's integrity; such compromise, you assert, leads to sexual deviance."

No, Dan. I do not assert this. But, YOU, in attempting to mischaracterize my statement, are attempting to confuse.

You have a problem.

The hierarchy of the RCC has pretty much this same problem.

As long as this problem is defended, it cannot be thoroughly exposed. Until it is exposed, the institution will remain corrupted by denial.

At the present time, the hierarchy of your Church has made an assessment that full exposure would be too costly.

In contrast, The Episcopal Church has made the assessment that full exposure, for itself, is the very best course of action. And YES, it is proving to be VERY costly. But, we will survive.

<quoted text>LOL!!!..... Sorry, Dan."...seemingly..."?No. It is a matter of fact.I didn't make ANY assertion that there is direct causation between celibacy and pedophilia."You assert that a vow of celibacy is innately harmful and compromises one's integrity; such compromise, you assert, leads to sexual deviance."No, Dan. I do not assert this. But, YOU, in attempting to mischaracterize my statement, are attempting to confuse.You have a problem.The hierarchy of the RCC has pretty much this same problem.As long as this problem is defended, it cannot be thoroughly exposed. Until it is exposed, the institution will remain corrupted by denial.At the present time, the hierarchy of your Church has made an assessment that full exposure would be too costly.In contrast, The Episcopal Church has made the assessment that full exposure, for itself, is the very best course of action. And YES, it is proving to be VERY costly. But, we will survive.There is an old adage: "Honesty is the best policy."Jesus said, "I am the Way, the truth and the Life."We are taking his statement at face value.

Your age is showing.

A quote from you:

"The requirement of celibacy - as a condition of eligibility - is where the deviation, which is a compromise of personal integrity, begins."

<quoted text>Your age is showing.A quote from you:"The requirement of celibacy - as a condition of eligibility - is where the deviation, which is a compromise of personal integrity, begins."Noted that you avoided actually responding to my post.

LOL!!!.... On the contrary!

I certainly do stand by the statement quoted above. Not everyone who takes this vow becomes a compromised individual. But, obviously, enough do, to the resultant point that a monstrous set of institutionalized corruption has developed in the RCC.

I responded DIRECTLY to your post. Celibacy is not the culprit. The requirement of celibacy is the culprit.

Obviously I do not agree with your disjointed thinking. So, I am not obligated to answer every cockamamie assertion that you make.

My replies to you are my replies, my opinions, my assertions and my observations. Am I always right? Not hardly.

But, of late, and especially regarding the problems you are having understanding how a REQUIRED vow of celibacy could result in the centuries-old development of a carefully hidden and institutionalized, grossly distorted incidence of sexual corruption, I have been generally correct.

You defend the RCC. The RCC is now trying to blame the deeply-rooted development of bastions of sexual corruption on the many homosexuals within the ranks of its ordinants for its VERY COSTLY pedophile problems. This is a fact.

We are observing the hierarchy of the RCC trying to stuff its sexual problems back into the "closet."

Wrong way to go. AND, they will not be successful.

I am sorry that you feel compelled to disagree. But, your attitude is no surprise. It is part of your denial, based in misdirected guilt and blame - which is a hallmark of the historical theological practices of the Roman Catholic Church.

<quoted text>LOL!!!.... On the contrary!I certainly do stand by the statement quoted above. Not everyone who takes this vow becomes a compromised individual. But, obviously, enough do, to the resultant point that a monstrous set of institutionalized corruption has developed in the RCC.I responded DIRECTLY to your post. Celibacy is not the culprit. The requirement of celibacy is the culprit.Obviously I do not agree with your disjointed thinking. So, I am not obligated to answer every cockamamie assertion that you make.My replies to you are my replies, my opinions, my assertions and my observations. Am I always right? Not hardly.But, of late, and especially regarding the problems you are having understanding how a REQUIRED vow of celibacy could result in the centuries-old development of a carefully hidden and institutionalized, grossly distorted incidence of sexual corruption, I have been generally correct.You defend the RCC. The RCC is now trying to blame the deeply-rooted development of bastions of sexual corruption on the many homosexuals within the ranks of its ordinants for its VERY COSTLY pedophile problems. This is a fact.We are observing the hierarchy of the RCC trying to stuff its sexual problems back into the "closet."Wrong way to go. AND, they will not be successful.I am sorry that you feel compelled to disagree. But, your attitude is no surprise. It is part of your denial, based in misdirected guilt and blame - which is a hallmark of the historical theological practices of the Roman Catholic Church.See:http://www.remnantofgod.org/rccsex.htm#estima...I think there are some extrapolated exaggerations at this URL. But, the incontrovertible point is made and much of it is fact.The information and the proof is in the public domain.Rev. Ken

Ad-hominem isn't a surrogate for an argument, Ken.

Your say-so doesn't render requiring celibacy a root cause of pedophilia any more than a protestant denomination requiring a "no-divorced clerics" rule leads to it.

I'm not defending the RCC here; I'm asking you to defend erroneous blanket statements you make.

<quoted text>Ad-hominem isn't a surrogate for an argument, Ken.Your say-so doesn't render requiring celibacy a root cause of pedophilia any more than a protestant denomination requiring a "no-divorced clerics" rule leads to it.I'm not defending the RCC here; I'm asking you to defend erroneous blanket statements you make.

Sorry, Dan.

You again try to distort my statements.

I never said that "requiring celibacy is a root cause of pedophilia."

That is what you would like to hear me say. But, that is NOT what I said.

<quoted text>Sorry, Dan.You again try to distort my statements.I never said that "requiring celibacy is a root cause of pedophilia."That is what you would like to hear me say. But, that is NOT what I said.You've got a problem, Dan.

".......The requirement of celibacy is the culprit."Is your next post going to tell us that the RCC deciding to require celibacy is the culprit, not celibacy nor requiring celibacy?I mean, chasing your tail in public isn't helping me and it SURE isn't doing you any good.I'd spend time trying to make a cogent argument instead of telling me you didn't say something when it's three or four posts up the page.

<quoted text>Sorry, Dan.You again try to distort my statements.I never said that "requiring celibacy is a root cause of pedophilia."That is what you would like to hear me say. But, that is NOT what I said.You've got a problem, Dan.

Let's make this simpler.

You, yourself, introduced an argument of some sort liking clerical celibacy in Catholicism with the pedophilia scandal.

Is mandated celibacy (recall that the vow is undertaken willingly-priests aren't conscripts) a root cause of pedophilia, in your opinion?

<quoted text>Let's make this simpler.You, yourself, introduced an argument of some sort liking clerical celibacy in Catholicism with the pedophilia scandal.Is mandated celibacy (recall that the vow is undertaken willingly-priests aren't conscripts) a root cause of pedophilia, in your opinion?

Dan,

No.

Celibacy doesn't cause either homosexuality or pedophilia. A homosexual is so because he or she is who he or she is. It is a normal, natural sexual orientation that occurs among a small percentage of humans; a part of the human spectrum of sexual orientation, physical and emotional-mental.

The pedophile does not become a pedophile because he or (rarely) she is or is not a celibate. Pedophilia is a mental illness that expresses as an adult obsession with children. It is most often expressed as a crime of opportunity, often associated with friendly invitations and grooming. The pedophile often takes pleasure in the destruction of innocence.

Do you not understand this?

The question is 'Why are sexually active men ending up in the ranks of RCC clergy and why does the RCC hierarchy permit a hidden culture involving bastions of these sexually active men to persist?' But, the answer does not begin simply when a man takes the vow. That is because the bastion of the two behaviors already exists, hidden inside the hierarchical institution. A receptacle already exists that propagates itself and hides those who already function on the inside.

The reason is that the screen created with the requirement of a vow of celibacy sets a precondition that allows homosexuals and homosexual pedophiles to enter the priesthhood. If these individuals do not come to the decision naturally and honestly, the vow creates a subtle, internal compromise of integrity. Even if they do come honestly, they may mature sexually. And this has created a centuries long pipeline leading into nests of these two behaviors.

Then, the Church in an extreme defense tries to cover, hide and deny that these situations exist. It becomes institutionalized.

This explanation is an oversimplification and an over-generalization. Every cell of these behaviors is existing within the ranks under different conditions. But, they all are fed through a required vow of celibacy. The fact that the individuals are shuffled and transferred through an opaque system of moving shells is the evidence of the internal awareness of the problem.

Furthermore, there are legitimate homosexual couples that develop as individuals find each other.

For the hierarchy to go after homosexuality in an attempt to weed out homosexual priests and to enforce celibacy, it is apparent that they think they can solve the problem by eliminating the symptom effects.

It won't work. It will only partially force the behavior back into a "closet" state.

Homosexuality is not the problem.

As for the destination of a life in a monastic setting or men only society and the call to serve the Church in priesthood, the two are not the same - except where they exist together. Even then, the sameness is in destination and context, but not in character. Again, the corruption already has to exist, hidden on the inside and only a fraction of the candidates are vulnerable. But, due to the nature of the selection process, the fraction is a significant number.

The link URL that I provided a couple of posts ago contains statistics and other sources of information.

If you are attempting to deny the problem, anything that tends to reveal causes, even if only partly correct, will be adversely regarded.

So, maybe instead of me explaing why I believe the problem has developed, and it does exist, perhaps you should offer reasons why you think the problem has developed.

<quoted text>Dan,No.Celibacy doesn't cause either homosexuality or pedophilia. A homosexual is so because he or she is who he or she is. It is a normal, natural sexual orientation that occurs among a small percentage of humans; a part of the human spectrum of sexual orientation, physical and emotional-mental.The pedophile does not become a pedophile because he or (rarely) she is or is not a celibate. Pedophilia is a mental illness that expresses as an adult obsession with children. It is most often expressed as a crime of opportunity, often associated with friendly invitations and grooming. The pedophile often takes pleasure in the destruction of innocence.Do you not understand this?

Rev. Ken

That was easy, wasn't it?

"No".

Then, why mention clerical celibacy in context of the sex scandal as many times as you did?

You continue by offering a new question and then answering it:

'Why are sexually active men ending up in the ranks of RCC clergy and why does the RCC hierarchy permit a hidden culture involving bastions of these sexually active men to persist?'

"The reason is that the screen created with the requirement of a vow of celibacy sets a precondition that allows homosexuals and homosexual pedophiles to enter the priesthhood. If these individuals do not come to the decision naturally and honestly, the vow creates a subtle, internal compromise of integrity. Even if they do come honestly, they may mature sexually. And this has created a centuries long pipeline leading into nests of these two behaviors.

Again, you portray, here, homosexuality as an undesirable outcome-unequivicolly. "Nests" of homosexuals? Do we spray for that?

You are telling us that homosexuals see the mandated vow of celibacy as some sort of "in" for....what? Gay date night at the seminary? Homosexuals ARE capable of taking and holding vows, yes? I mean, they DO wish marriage and you're for that I believe.

<quoted text>That was easy, wasn't it?"No".Then, why mention clerical celibacy in context of the sex scandal as many times as you did?You continue by offering a new question and then answering it:'Why are sexually active men ending up in the ranks of RCC clergy and why does the RCC hierarchy permit a hidden culture involving bastions of these sexually active men to persist?'"The reason is that the screen created with the requirement of a vow of celibacy sets a precondition that allows homosexuals and homosexual pedophiles to enter the priesthhood. If these individuals do not come to the decision naturally and honestly, the vow creates a subtle, internal compromise of integrity. Even if they do come honestly, they may mature sexually. And this has created a centuries long pipeline leading into nests of these two behaviors.Again, you portray, here, homosexuality as an undesirable outcome-unequivicolly. "Nests" of homosexuals? Do we spray for that?You are telling us that homosexuals see the mandated vow of celibacy as some sort of "in" for....what? Gay date night at the seminary? Homosexuals ARE capable of taking and holding vows, yes? I mean, they DO wish marriage and you're for that I believe.

Boy! What a waffled response from you!

It is useless for you to deny that you are not trying to protect and defend the Church in your persistent attempts to thwart a rational discussion of these sexual problems in the RC Church and the continuing cover-up that is occurring.

That is the thread topic here and you are complying by continuing with at least a partial denial of the problem and its root causes.

I have repeatedly said that a vow of celibacy as a requirement for admission into the priesthood has caused a corruption in the priesthood. Celibacy is a personal discipline and is not the problem. I stand by these statements.

The individuals who cannot abide by the vow are the problem. Two behaviors result. Instead of living in a state of celibacy, in compliance with the vow that they have taken, 1) Sexually active, normal adult heterosexuals and normal adult homosexuals have found and will find ways to circumvent the vow. 2) Sexually active pedophiles have found and will find ways to circumvent the vow.

Clerical celibacy as an enforced behavior is mentioned in the context of the sex scandal and the sexual crimes against children because the vow cannot be externally competently policed. For some - and apparently a sizable fraction - the tension becomes too great and a release is sought and found and repeatedly so.

The breaking of the vow occurs in a myriad of situations and conditions. But, if you do not understand that within the ranks there are cooperative and enabling groups of individuals, nsets as it were, you do not understand the nature of the centuries-long institutional problem.

Most of the rest of the entire world understands that the RCC has this horrendous and heinous problem with pedophiles. Many understand that homosexuality is no more of a problem than is heterosexuality. But, its action is not celibacy.

Now, again, since you do not like my explanations, it is time, in this conversation, for you to offer YOUR explanations.

<quoted text>Boy! What a waffled response from you!It is useless for you to deny that you are not trying to protect and defend the Church in your persistent attempts to thwart a rational discussion of these sexual problems in the RC Church and the continuing cover-up that is occurring.That is the thread topic here and you are complying by continuing with at least a partial denial of the problem and its root causes.I have repeatedly said that a vow of celibacy as a requirement for admission into the priesthood has caused a corruption in the priesthood. Celibacy is a personal discipline and is not the problem. I stand by these statements.The individuals who cannot abide by the vow are the problem. Two behaviors result. Instead of living in a state of celibacy, in compliance with the vow that they have taken, 1) Sexually active, normal adult heterosexuals and normal adult homosexuals have found and will find ways to circumvent the vow. 2) Sexually active pedophiles have found and will find ways to circumvent the vow.Clerical celibacy as an enforced behavior is mentioned in the context of the sex scandal and the sexual crimes against children because the vow cannot be externally competently policed. For some - and apparently a sizable fraction - the tension becomes too great and a release is sought and found and repeatedly so.The breaking of the vow occurs in a myriad of situations and conditions. But, if you do not understand that within the ranks there are cooperative and enabling groups of individuals, nsets as it were, you do not understand the nature of the centuries-long institutional problem.Most of the rest of the entire world understands that the RCC has this horrendous and heinous problem with pedophiles. Many understand that homosexuality is no more of a problem than is heterosexuality. But, its action is not celibacy.Now, again, since you do not like my explanations, it is time, in this conversation, for you to offer YOUR explanations.Thanks.Rev. Ken

"The individuals who cannot abide by the vow are the problem."

Ding, Ding! Finally.

Thus, the requirement for celibacy isn't the problem. People who don't or won't honor a vow are the problem. A vow is taken individually and without coercion, thus it cannot BE "externally policed" if said individual has no intention of holding it sacred. Sexual crimes vs. children are the bad acts of individuals who most assuredly are not imprisoned into sexual oppression-they take (and break) the clerical vow of their own volition, inasmuch as pedophiles who are married men do.

<quoted text>"The individuals who cannot abide by the vow are the problem."Ding, Ding! Finally.Thus, the requirement for celibacy isn't the problem. People who don't or won't honor a vow are the problem. A vow is taken individually and without coercion, thus it cannot BE "externally policed" if said individual has no intention of holding it sacred. Sexual crimes vs. children are the bad acts of individuals who most assuredly are not imprisoned into sexual oppression-they take (and break) the clerical vow of their own volition, inasmuch as pedophiles who are married men do.

If that is the answer you knew you were looking for, why didn't you shortcut the process?

How did these people get ordained in the first place?

Do you think that the Church hierarchy is externally policing now?

If you don't, you don't understand what is going on!

If they take and break the vow of their own volition, why doesn't the Church release them. Moreover, why does the Church continue to hide them and keep them and then put them in a situation where they can start the behavior all over again - as so many have done?

On these threads, Joe DeCaro often criticizes Episcopal Church ( now Presiding) Bishop Kate Jefferts-Schori for accepting the request from an RCC monk and pedophile to be ordained. Yet, he never admitted to being caught and tried for pedophilia because he settled out of court. His monastery, when asked if there was anything they knew about his experience in the monastic life that TEC might need to know, was silent and revealed nothing about him.

<quoted text>If that is the answer you knew you were looking for, why didn't you shortcut the process?How did these people get ordained in the first place?Do you think that the Church hierarchy is externally policing now?If you don't, you don't understand what is going on!If they take and break the vow of their own volition, why doesn't the Church release them. Moreover, why does the Church continue to hide them and keep them and then put them in a situation where they can start the behavior all over again - as so many have done?On these threads, Joe DeCaro often criticizes Episcopal Church ( now Presiding) Bishop Kate Jefferts-Schori for accepting the request from an RCC monk and pedophile to be ordained. Yet, he never admitted to being caught and tried for pedophilia because he settled out of court. His monastery, when asked if there was anything they knew about his experience in the monastic life that TEC might need to know, was silent and revealed nothing about him.Finally, why is the Church now blaming homosexuality?

"Shortcut the process"? Have you read your posts? Some of them are so big that they have their own post office.

I know that they are internally policing more now.

They do get dismissed/laicized/punished/wh atever. That's all Canon Law stuff. You know about that as you're a TEC priest.

I don't know a thing about Joe D's deal and it sounds like a TEC thing. Can't respond there.

RE: how did they get ordained in the first place-hell, same way any deviant gets a job-they don't tell about it at the interview. I have no exact idea, Ken, but there it is.

I know that the Church is doing more screening for homosexuality. Is that what you mean by "blaming"?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.